Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34741892›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2022

Comparing automated vs. manual data collection for COVID-specific medications from electronic health records.

Andrew L Yin, Winston L Guo, Evan T Sholle, Mangala Rajan, Mark N Alshak, Justin J Choi, Parag Goyal, Assem Jabri, Han A Li, Laura C Pinheiro and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Assessment of a novel semi-automated dataset for large-scale surveillance of central venous catheter-related mechanical complications.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrew L YinWeill Cornell Medical College, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: aly27@cornell.edu.
Winston L GuoWeill Cornell Medical College, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Evan T SholleInformation Technologies & Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Mangala RajanDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Mark N AlshakWeill Cornell Medical College, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Justin J ChoiDivision of General Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Parag GoyalDivision of General Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Assem JabriDivision of General Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Han A LiWeill Cornell Medical College, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Laura C PinheiroDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Graham T WehmeyerWeill Cornell Medical College, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Mark WeinerDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Information Technologies & Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Weill Cornell COVID-19 Data Abstraction ConsortiumWeill Cornell Medical College, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Information Technologies & Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Monika M SaffordDivision of General Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Thomas R CampionInformation Technologies & Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Clinical and Translational Science Center, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Curtis L ColeDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Cornell University · US

Funding

Disparities in COVID Disease Severity and Outcomes in New York CityUL1TR002384 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI JULIANNE L IMPERATO-MCGINLEY · 2017 to 2026
$86.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002384
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionData extraction from electronic health record (EHR) systems occurs through manual abstraction, automated extraction, or a combination of both. While each method has its strengths and weaknesses, both are necessary for retrospective observational research as well as sudden clinical events, like the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing the strengths, weaknesses, and potentials of these methods is important to continue to understand optimal approaches to extracting clinical data. We set out to assess automated and manual techniques for collecting medication use data in patients with COVID-19 to inform future observational studies that extract data from the electronic health record (EHR). MATERIALS AND

methodsFor 4,123 COVID-positive patients hospitalized and/or seen in the emergency department at an academic medical center between 03/03/2020 and 05/15/2020, we compared medication use data of 25 medications or drug classes collected through manual abstraction and automated extraction from the EHR. Quantitatively, we assessed concordance using Cohen's kappa to measure interrater reliability, and qualitatively, we audited observed discrepancies to determine causes of inconsistencies.

resultsFor the 16 inpatient medications, 11 (69%) demonstrated moderate or better agreement; 7 of those demonstrated strong or almost perfect agreement. For 9 outpatient medications, 3 (33%) demonstrated moderate agreement, but none achieved strong or almost perfect agreement. We audited 12% of all discrepancies (716/5,790) and, in those audited, observed three principal categories of error: human error in manual abstraction (26%), errors in the extract-transform-load (ETL) or mapping of the automated extraction (41%), and abstraction-query mismatch (33%).

conclusionOur findings suggest many inpatient medications can be collected reliably through automated extraction, especially when abstraction instructions are designed with data architecture in mind. We discuss quality issues, concerns, and improvements for institutions to consider when crafting an approach. During crises, institutions must decide how to allocate limited resources. We show that automated extraction of medications is feasible and make recommendations on how to improve future iterations.

Indexed as

COVID-19Pharmaceutical PreparationsData CollectionElectronic Health RecordsHumansPandemicsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2Pharmaceutical PreparationsChart reviewCOVID-19Data qualityElectronic health recordResearch data repositories

Identifiers

PMID34741892
PMCPMC8529289
OpenAlexW3211024994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.